Jump to content

Talk:Geo Metro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engine Design

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of anger toward this design of engine, and believe me I ruined 2 cars before I figured out that the 5w 20 oil is no joke. They use very thin rings and the thicker oil makes them get carboned up and stick causing blow by. This is usually where you get the people who are not satisfied. The gas mileage suffers and the engine seems worn out. Since I started following the manual and special ordering oil I have had no problems. Total Chevrolet Sprints and Metros I have owned for personal use = 5.

Does anyone understand how this engine actually runs? How can a 4 stroke engine run on 3 cylinders? aren't we missing a power stroke in the rotation? This would be something interesting to put here if anyone understands how this is possible. - Seiggy

Number of cylinders has nothing to do with the number of strokes. "Strokes" simply refers to each process the piston goes through - intake (down - stroke 1), compression (up - stroke 2), power (down - stroke 3), exhaust (up - stroke 4)...and repeat a few thousand times per minute.
The above is true. In addition the piston rod journals on the crank shaft are spaced 120 degrees apart. Since it is a 3 cylinder, by intuition it seems that it should feel like it has a miss-fire on one cylinder; but in order to make the engine feel like it runs smoothly a balance shaft rotates inside the block, in time with the rest of the engine. A balance shaft is simply a shaft with a rotating, off-center weight attached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.46.88 (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better explanation, but still a little off. Just try thinking about it - it's not like they've merely taken a 4-cylinder car and removed one piston from the design, it's an extensively re-engineered design. It works the same way that a straight-6 doesn't feel like it has two "extra" strokes per cycle, but instead is one of the most inherently balanced designs... the way the pots are connected to the crank is arranged differently to a common 4-cyl. The power strokes occur in an even, rhythmical, well-timed fashion in exactly the same fashion as any other cylinder complement, be it 2, 4, 5, 6... etc. The difference is mainly in engine tone, smoothness (still not a major issue so long as it's properly balanced and the balancer components are resilient enough) and how failsafe it is (if you lose one cylinder, you're down to 66% power not 75 - such engine faults are incredibly rare in a well maintained car these days, however). A friend of mine has recently bought a 3-cyl engined Seat Ibiza, and it seems perfectly fine... noticeably a little rougher than my mother's 4-cyl engine of the same VAG line (in a Skoda), but about as smooth as previous generation VW 4-pots, and just as powerful. The main difference that can be noticed is the lower note from the engine, it doesn't sound like it's revving particularly hard even up to 5000rpm which coupled with the unmodified gearbox (~22.5mph/1000 in 5th, which would "sound" more like 30/1000) means they're often in too low a gear without realising, and somewhat reduced low-rpm torque.
"tl;dr version" - just because there's 4 cylinders and 4 strokes per cycle doesn't mean there's necessarily any connection between those two figures, other than it being a convenient way to lay out the engine and a simple way to work out the valve/ignition timing and piston/crank geometry (ie pairing/180 degree opposing the piston positions). You get 1 cylinder 4-strokes in bikes, after all.
BTW, the reasoning behind the reduction in number is many-fold --- the cylinders are closer to the (anecdotally recounted to me) "ideal size" of 300~500cc/chamber (for most efficient combustion because of speed of reaction, etc), weight reduction (both features improving performance and economy), fewer parts/lower complexity (ignoring the balancer) and therefore lower price and potentially better reliability... and the lower, more growling sound can be more attractive depending on the application! 82.46.180.56 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Economy

[edit]

Also the fuel mileage seems to be wrong. I seem to remember television commercials claiming epa tests that the car would do 50-55 mpg and I believe this is the official figure. I had a 1992 that did 60 mpg on the highway and 56 in town. If we are going on anecdotal evidence we should at least change the article to say 40-60 mpg instead of 40-50

James Trapp

Depends on the model/trim line etc. Check out fueleconomy.gov which breaks down some of the options and thus varying fuel economy ratings.--King V 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trapp, I agree with you about the MPG. But we must remember it was probably the Metro XFi model that got the 55-60 miles per gallon highway. Most other standard models got closer to 50 on the highway and 40 in the city. This would make an average of about 45 MPG for the combined metro models. One of the big reasons why this car got such good gas mileage was because of it's econo 3 cylinders and the featherweight body. '89 and '90 2dr, 49HP models were only 1580 lbs. (That's about half the weight of most cars).
It should also be noted that the EPA typical reduces their actual ratings by 10-20% when publishing their numbers to the public. This is because most people accelerate hard and brake hard and also drive in excess of the speed limit so the EPA try to drop their numbers to produce more "real world" numbers. Of course, what they should really do is test vehicles in a cold lab instead of the tropical environment they tend to use. Temperature is the greatest contributor to fuel economy increase/decrease. Hot weather = great gas mileage. Cold weather = crappy gas mileage. My Metro swings between 30 - 60 mpg winter to summer.
I'm not going to say you're wrong since your car probably does what it does, but that seems counter intuitive given that cold air is denser and allows the fuel injection computer to add more fuel to the air stream for more power. Which I am realizing as I write: more power = less MPG. So there you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.46.88 (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little history revision needed?

[edit]

I think there's some inaccurate history on this page, at least when it comes to the North American version. The Chevrolet Metro did not appear til 1998, when Chevrolet did away with the Geo brand. The Chevrolet Sprint was introduced as a 1985 model, which was based on the Suzuki Forsa. The Geo Metro didn't appear until 1989, when the Forsa was upgraded and reshaped to become the Swift.

It is absolutely necessary to mention the Chevrolet Metro first in the history, because the Metro name was used under the Chevrolet brand before it was used under the Geo brand. In addition I believe it is necessary to mention the predecessor as well as the replacement. We have already given information about the replacement. This lets the reader know that the car didn't just appear, but was the product of a developing machine, refined and engineered several times. Geo metro is one name of a developing machine in one point in history. The article should focus on that particular time period and those designs, but should include brief allusion to the other time periods of the same machine.

James Trapp

How many old model Metros were sold from '89 to 94 in the US?

[edit]

Does anyone have statistics on how many old model Metros were sold from '89 to 94 in the US?--70.59.155.91 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.0 Liter HP Rating is a bit off.

[edit]

The article shows the horsepower of the 1.0 Liter base engine as 110 horsepower. I wish my 91 3dr had that kind of power and got the 45 to 50 mpg it always did.I say did because just this week the lower front suspension part of the frame just broke away nearly causing a serious accident. A word of caution to folks still trying to operate one of these cars in rusted condition DON'T! 209.83.10.151 04:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a common problem: Rust on the frame rail near the lower control arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.46.88 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, how damn light is this thing that it manages a "just over 10 seconds" 0-60 time with just 55 bhp? That's more a ~80hp time as far as I've seen, even amongst small lightweight city cars. 55hp would be more around 15s for the same class of vehicle. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Geo/Chevrolet Metro → Chevrolet Metro — move from strange pseudo-compromise that goes against naming conventions —Reginmund (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Move and double redirects left alone

[edit]

Cultus merge?

[edit]

Wouldn't it make sense to merge this article with Suzuki Cultus... much the way Daewoo Kalos consolidates Chevrolet Aveo, etc. ? 842U (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original vehicle here would be the Suzuki Cultus, although the Geo Metro (and, in turn, the American Suzuki Swift or whatever it was called... darn Suzuki...), anyhoo, they had another body generation the Cultus and "global" Swift missed. So I guess there is some reason in keeping the Metro separate from the Cultus. That said, articles on Suzukis and Suzuki derivatives are a total mess and certainly need a good cleanup. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Pontiac Firefly even has its own article, and that should certainly be incorporated into the Metro article. By contrast, getting all the iterations of the Daewoo Kalos into one article was a good thing, and alleviates a lot of headaches. 842U (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun integrating the Geo Metro, Chevrolet Sprint and Pontiac Firefly articles into the Suzuki Cultus article. The early sections of the Suzuki Swift article belong under the Cultus, as well. Discuss842U (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The merge has happened. Firefly, Forsa, Metro, Sprint and Swift (except GenIV) articles info have been integrated into the Suzuki Cultus article. Certainly there is overlap between the subjections, specifically generational and engine info, but the article is now more in keeping with the WPS guidelines. 842U (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal I-3 engine notes

[edit]

What about removing the anecdotal info on this engine, re its problems, and uncited mpg claims? 842U (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to information, everyone wants to know as much as they can, and this is a good source for that. As for the claims, they are severely underrated by the EPA. I have a 1989 Chevrolet Sprint automatic, and I live in a somewhat hilly area. I should at most, get 34 mpg. I get 42. JoshJLMG (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to information, everyone wants to know as much as they can, and this is a good source for that. As for the claims, they are severely underrated by the EPA. I have a 1989 Chevrolet Sprint automatic, and I live in a somewhat hilly area. I should at most, get 34 mpg. I get 42. JoshJLMG (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geo_Metro&oldid=1200637843"